If America had compulsory voting, would Democrats win every election?

Lexington has been in Pennsylvania this week (and Texas too, but that is for another day), looking at the science/art of get-out-the-vote efforts, and their dark cousin, namely efforts to suppress the votes of the other side.

Democrats are pretty convinced that voter suppression is precisely what their Republican foes are up to, via a new law (currently facing legal challenges before the courts) that requires voters to show an up-to-date identity card with a photograph and expiry date, issued by one of a list of official authorities. To Democrats and a coalition of civil-liberties and civil-rights groups, the idea is to disenfranchise those voters most likely to lack a drivers' licence or other official ID, namely low-income black and Hispanic residents of Philadelphia, where many locals use public transport and do not drive, as well as the elderly in that city. Their exhibit A is a recording from earlier this year of Mike Turzai, the Republican majority leader in the Pennsylvania state house, boasting about his party's recent achievements. Coming to the voter-ID law, he told a friendly crowd that it "is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania".

To understand why that might possibly be true, consider that Pennsylvania is almost two states politically, with a densely-populated, racially diverse southeastern corner round Philadelphia that is a one-party fiefdom for the Democrats, a few more strongly Democratic urban areas and then large swathes of conservative, white, rural and coal-mining country that often feels more like it could be way to the south (Pennsyltucky, as the interior of the state is known to both friends and enemies). In 2008, Barack Obama won Pennsylvania by some 620,000 votes, almost 600,000 of them from Philadelphia.

Republican state politicians who sponsored the new ID law say it is necessary to end what they say is rampant voter fraud. They note that modern life requires citizens to show IDs to buy cough syrup, so why not require them to vote? It is true that in polls, Pennsylvanians support new voter-ID controls, though the results are heavily skewed along partisan lines. A new poll by Mercyhurst University shows that overall, 57% of Pennsylvanians support the voter-ID law. But when broken down by party, what that actually means is that 90% of Republicans support the new law, while only 31% of Democrats do. Still more starkly, 64% of Democrats think the laws unfairly target disadvantaged people, but only 9% of Republicans agree.

This is a blog posting based on some preliminary reporting, and does not pretend to be a full-scale investigation of Pennsylvania voting. But talking to elected politicians, state-party bosses, pollsters, political scientists, commentators and community groups, some interesting ironies jumped out at me.

Start with that shtick mentioned at the start. The Republican prime sponsor of the voter-ID law in the Pennsylvania state legislature, Daryl Metcalfe, has been in the local headlines this week after linking his campaign for tougher election rules with Mitt Romney's comments conflating the roughly half of the country who do not pay federal income taxes with the roughly half of the country who reliably vote Democrat (a conflation which works if you ignore tens of millions of low-income Republicans and wealthy Democrats).

I telephoned Mr Metcalfe in Harrisburg. The intent of the law is to ensure that not one legally-cast vote is cancelled out by the forces of corruption, Mr Metcalfe told me. There is lots of fraud in Philadelphia elections, he went on, and besides, those "whining" about lacking voter ID through their representatives in the ACLU or other groups quickly get ID cards. Mr Metcalfe does not believe that any voter who embraces their responsibilities and seeks a card will be denied one, and charges that left-wing groups are happy to defend voter fraud because they fear the authentic will of the people. Republicans believe that God-given rights come with responsibilities. Others do not, he suggests, telling me:

It's not even debatable that certain individuals in society have an entitlement mentality, and think they should be allowed to enjoy the fruits of their neighbours' labours. If they are too lazy to do what they have to do to secure that ID, that is not the state's responsibility. The state can't fix lazy.

In short, Mr Metcalfe speaks for that slice of conservative opinion fearful that a great mass of subsidised welfare leeches stands ready to overwhelm the hard-working, self-supporting votes of conservative citizens.

But here is the thing, I suggested to Mr Metcalfe. The poorest and least educated are overwhelmingly Democrats when asked, but—far from comprising Barack Obama’s base—they mostly do not vote (less than 40% of adult high-school drop-outs voted in 2008, for instance, and about 50% of the unemployed).

America—a land that takes its liberties seriously—is unlikely to copy Belgium or Australia and adopt compulsory voting. But if it did, Mr Obama would romp home in November. Are you not in fact lucky that so many welfare recipients do not vote, I asked him? He did not agree.

The law has galvanised voluntary groups, including the Committee of Seventy, a clean-government watchdog run and funded by Philadelphia’s business elite since 1904 as a counterweight to a Democratic-dominated city political machine. The board of the committee is crammed with CEOs and bosses from law firms, and includes many rock-ribbed Republicans. When the board first considered the voter-ID law, it struggled to see why it might want to intervene, Ed Lovelidge, the board chairman of the Committee of Seventy told me. "We all have IDs, who doesn't have IDs in today's world?" he noted. But then board members began to think about their elderly, non-driving parents, or people in Philadelphia who use buses and trains, and decided to oppose the law, and to put its weight behind efforts to help voters get ID cards.

The committee has been monitoring elections since it was founded, and is not naive about what senior figures there calls "shenanigans", often involving cash, or "street money" that has been traditionally distributed by members of the Philadelphia political machine to local organisers, ostensibly to cover election expenses.

The committee's view is that such electoral shenanigans are much more likely to involve small, local races than presidential contests. They would traditionally involve street money, patronage and the machine "forgetting" to turn out voters whose views do not suit local powerbrokers. "There have been instances of reimbursements for people voting for one candidate," says Mr Lovelidge, a big cheese at PwC, the professional services firm. But he calls a specific law on voter IDs: "a solution in search of a problem".

State judges will issue a verdict on October 2nd, on the narrow but important question of whether Pennsylvania authorities can guarantee that every voter that needs a new card can and will be issued with one in time for the elections on November 6th. However, even if the court finds that the law risks disenfranchising voters and so cannot take effect now, the state is likely to appeal, say local Democrats, keeping everyone in uncertainty.

A final irony looms. Perhaps half of all those without identity cards were not likely to vote anyway, says Terry Madonna of Franklin and Marshall College, a pollster and political sage. Among the rest of the population, the idea that Republicans are trying to suppress black and low-income votes has energised the Democratic base like “rocket fuel”, to quote the chairman of the state Democrats, Jim Burn. In short, the voter-ID law could end up being a net positive for the Democrats.

I own various cars, motorcycles, and properties. I am a highly educated, highly compensated professional. I am a citizen of the US of A, and a longtime participant in our "democracy".

Yet by the letter of the laws being passed by the GOP today, I could quite easily be disenfranchised. You see, my driver's license shows an old address (I have since purchased additional properties and moved). You could call me a lazy taker, but you'd be wrong. I simply refuse to waste half a day at the DMV to change a few letters on my ID.

So who would be able to disenfranchise me? Anyone. Any poll worker who literally didn't like the look of my face, and felt that I might vote in a manner in which he did not approve. They could look at my ID, notice the mismatched address, and decline to give me my ballot. If they liked me, they could simply shrug off the discrepancy, and happily invite me to vote. And who, do you think, staffs most polls?

I was once turned away at the polls in a conservative precinct by a little old white lady who insisted that I was required to bring my SAMPLE ballot to the polls. I had already presented her with my ID, and actually saw my name on the list on her desk in front of me. Astounded, I demanded that she prove such a requirement existed, and she had to back down.

The simple answer is that no, they would not win every election. They would certainly win this one. But then the Republican party would adapt its message and policies to cater to a wider electorate.

Which would be no bad thing, because appealing to self-congratulatory plutocrats, tea-party zealots and religious fanatics is not going to win this election or the next for the GOP.

You don't win elections by disenfranchising people. At best you steal them. But it is not just the poorer voters that the Republicans appear to be writing off. If you are educated, socially liberal, tolerant, then you are just not welcome in the GOP.
If the Republican party can't win in the economic powerhouses of California and New York, then what business does it have running the country?

Here in America we specialize in passing laws, spending significant amounts of money, to fix problems that aren't problems.

My personal favorite is the new Missouri law, H.B. 1621 passed in March 2012, which would make it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against someone with a concealed carry permit or who otherwise uses their gun in a lawful manner. When asked, the bill's sponsor, Reb. Wanda Brown, R-Lincoln, couldn't cite a single instance of employment discrimination, or discrimination of any kind, based on gun ownership. Yet, Missouri has no law, recognizes no law, that inhibits discrimination based on sexual orientation.

You're right, Kate. It is all a Democtatic Party conspiracy. The US Justice Department under the Republican President George W. Bush (the report was done from 2002-2007), was certainly heavily biased in favor of the Democrats. Bush's whole administration was, in fact. He was secretly a Democrat...

But opinions are just so much more fun than pesky facts, aren't they, Kate?

'Following the 2008 elections, nearly 80 individuals in Minnesota were convicted of voter fraud. Almost all of them were convicted felons who were out on probation and didn’t know they weren’t allowed to vote.'

Those illegal votes were stricken from the total.

The elderly are concerned their voting rights may be curtailed (dated 2-11-11, Minnesota.gov):

'Mary Lou Hill, a 94-year-old resident and member of the League of Women Voters, said many senior citizens lack the mobility and the financial means to track down and purchase birth certificates and other documents that may be required to obtain one of the free photo IDs provided for in the bills.'

I'm not against requiring a Photo ID (I need one to vote here in Michigan), but I question how 9 states simultaneously began to pursue this type of legislation once a Republican majority was achieved in their state. I question the timing. I question the motive.

We have compulsory voting here in Brazil, if you miss the election day you'll have to justify through a bureaucratic way, otherwise you can´t open a bank account, have a passport or drivers license, etc. And obviously the socialists and control freaks love this, its much easier to manipulate and threaten voters this way.
But that brings rebel reactions too, we call it "protest vote" when voters choose some bizarre creature instead of the human politician.
In the 1950s, local zoo resident Cacareco, a Rhinoceros, used to get elected often, and in the 1980s "Macaco Tião", a Rio chimpanzee, entered the Guinness Book as the most voted monkey in the history.
Maybe thats why Brazil was the 1st nation to change the voting system to electronic, its less embarrassing and safe, you must push buttons and can´t write any name.
And maybe Americans should start visiting some zoos.

"Republican state politicians who sponsored the new ID law say it is necessary to end what they say is rampant voter fraud."

Are you aware that voter fraud in the US doesn't exist?

Take the following: "A major probe by the Justice Department between 2002 and 2007 failed to prosecute a single person for going to the polls and impersonating an eligible voter, which the anti-fraud laws are supposedly designed to stop. Out of the 300 million votes cast in that period, federal prosecutors convicted only 86 people for voter fraud – and many of the cases involved immigrants and former felons who were simply unaware of their ineligibility. A much-hyped investigation in Wisconsin, meanwhile, led to the prosecution of only .0007 percent of the local electorate for alleged voter fraud."
From: Ari Berman, http://www.thenation.com/blog/167217/voter-fraud-fraud#

It sure looks like the Republicans' #1 motivation for the ID laws is to disenfranchise those for whom getting an ID is logistically difficult or near-impossible...

The idea that requiring an ID is suppressing voters is absurd to most of us who live outside the US. I know of no other country where people can be registered by others without providing several documents proving their ID and can vote without a valid, government issued ID.
It is sad to have the media steadily repeating this canard, serving as the propagator of the Big Lie.

In Canada for two. One does not need a government issued ID to vote here. You can get someone to vouch for you.

Failing that, they can also accept a combination of other non-official identifications, (It's a pretty expansive list from library cards to bills you got in the mail) just so long as there's sufficient info provided.

Voter ID laws prevent more legal voting than illegal voting by far and the motivations for its adoption ARE for political advantage.

"The poorest and least educated are overwhelmingly Democrats". Really? You are obviously hanging out around the urban poor, and not the rural, white, low information, one-issue, willfully ignorant hicks that continually vote Republican no matter the sad economic consequences for themselves.
You gotta get out more.

Why is America the only western liberal democracy to be having this debate? Simple, because it is the only one where a growing proportion of the population (basically in response to growing immigration) has started to question whether all citizens vote are worth the same. The US has been a complete democracy for only a few decades and the rich are again trying to convince the middle class that the poor shouldn't vote. It is really sad actually to be having this debate well into the 21st century.

Every time this story comes up, I'm increasingly aghast at the number of things you allegedly need photo ID for.

When I was growing up, 'having to carry an identity card' was one of those evil things that totalitarian and communist regimes inflicted on its people. As I grew older, I learned that in practice most people in those countries didn't carry them all the time, but they did if they wanted to buy certain things or enter certain buildings.

Now it seems America has instituted both of those rules. One comment the other day said that you needed ID to "attend a rally". What the hey?

Did America really win the Cold War, only to turn into its enemy? Is Bin Laden's victory *so* complete that this is the New Normal?

Mike Turzai (member, Pennsylvania House of Representatives): (the voter-ID law) "...is going to allow Governor Romney to win the State of Pennsylvania!"
That comment is troubling, it suggests a disturbing motive, to 'rig' the election in their favor.

Forgive my Eurocentric perspective, but what the heck is so evil about an ID card??? I might or not carry one, but the fact is that nobody can pretend to be me just by... saying so! If you don't drive, how do you show anyone who you are? It befuddles the mind that a modern country leaves personal identity to the discretion of who does or does not drive...
I have had an ID all my life, with the same number attributed to me. I have never had less privacy as a result. With all the other existing checks and controls that already exist in our lives (e.g. as a consumer, as a bank-account owner, as a tax-payer, as an air traveler, etc), this strikes as a quaint mania quite out of step with reality.

Regarding the appeal, I don't really mind the law, apart from the nefarious intent of its sponsors, as long as it goes into effect a year or more ahead of the following election. The idea that getting I.D. is onerous seems a little silly. But the case that this law was intended to suppress the right to vote in contradiction of the constitution and traditional American values seems obvious.

I say, let the law go into effect in January and put everyone who voted for it in stockades during the interim.

Problem with that: enough people like the Electoral College to keep it in place.

It'd be much better to keep it but get rid of the winner-take-all racket which the Big Two parties use to hi-jack it. This is what made the Florida Recount of 2000 into the big stink which it became. Winner-take-all put all 25 (at that time) Florida electorships on the line; if they had vote-by district then only three electorships would have been at stake. The result would have been 14-11 for Bush. No one would have cared because, instead of a 271-266 final tally for Bush, the result would have been 277-260 for Gore.

You read that right: GORE WOULD HAVE WON THE ELECTION if Florida had vote-by-district.

Funny how the Democrats never mention this. But, like the GOP, they play the winner-take-all game. But why hasn't the media mentioned it?

As ACORN has shown the are millions of people who are on the voting roles who are illegal, dead or pets. As for the term voter suppression the actual term is legal voters. We saw in the 2010 election where AL Frankin from MN was elected to the US Senate via felons who don't have the right to vote.
We have seen over the years where Democrats have done everything in their power to stop absentee military votes.
As for Seniors the dems passed a bill in 2010 that stipulated that SS would no longer mail a paper check come Jan 1. So that means EVERY senior has to have a bank account and a picture ID.

It's wrong that the country that 'invented' modern democracy should have so many not vote. It's difficult for some to get to the polls when they live far from where they work. Mail-in has helped. But my plan: Everyone who votes would get one federal lottery ticket. The winner would be flown to the Bureau of Printing and Engraving where the President would work the handle of the press printing the prize which would include the winner's face on a special series of bills. Anyone guilty of voting twice would be publicly flogged (three strokes) by the opposing party's candidate.